‘Nothing to see here’ says Australia as third Thales corruption case starts globally
the NACC did not appear to have placed sufficient weight on the seriousness of the matter, particularly as Thales is linked to several international corruption matters, operates in one of the most corrupt industries in the world, and currently manages Australian Government contracts worth billions of dollars.
the Defence Department hired an external negotiator with a conflict of interest to lead its billion-dollar negotiations with Thales……………………………………Defence’s two lead negotiators together owned 55% of Scotwork, and would benefit financially.
Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy turns a blind eye to “unethical conduct” between Thales and the Defence Department despite national audit office warning of “capture” by weapons giants
Michelle Fahy, Dec 08, 2024, https://undueinfluence.substack.com/p/nothing-to-see-here-says-australia?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=297295&post_id=152750589&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Part 3 of 3 (read part 1 and part 2)
The number of corruption investigations into the Thales Group continues to mount internationally with another announced two weeks ago.
The UK’s Serious Fraud Office and its French equivalent, Parquet National Financier, are jointly investigating suspected bribery and corruption by Thales on a contract in Asia. Thales has denied the allegations.
This followed news in June that police in France, the Netherlands and Spain had raided Thales’ offices in those countries as part of two separate additional corruption investigations into arms deals involving the Thales Group, as we reported in part 2.
In Australia, however, the Albanese government has swept aside a key integrity agency’s reports of “unethical conduct” between Thales and the Defence Department, appointing Thales as the fourth “strategic partner” in the new domestic missile-making enterprise.
Minister for Defence Industry Pat Conroy dismissed as an “unsubstantiated allegation” that was “flying around” the documented concerns of the Australian National Audit Office about a former defence official sharing confidential information with Thales and later soliciting a bottle of champagne from the company.
In a televised address at the National Press Club on October 30, where Conroy announced the government’s appointment of Thales as a Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance (GWEO) “Strategic Partner”, the minister was asked whether he remained confident in Thales and its integrity.
Said Conroy: “Let’s be very frank about this thing that’s flying around. There’s an allegation of an incident that occurred in 2017. 2017 – seven years ago – under the last government.
“Defence has thoroughly investigated it and I’m advised that’s there’s been no evidence to substantiate the allegation. It’s important to note that there is one allegation, unsubstantiated.”
But Conroy was wrong to claim the Thales deal has been “thoroughly investigated”, said Chris Douglas, a Perth-based international financial crime consultant.
“It has not been. The Defence Department does not have the capability to investigate allegations that could involve corruption.”
Douglas said that a thorough investigation could only be undertaken by a law enforcement agency, particularly the National Anti-Corruption Commission, “using a full suite of investigation powers including electronic evidence gathering”.
“There might be evidence at the person’s home, Defence isn’t going to find that, or in premises occupied by Thales, Defence won’t find that either. That is why we have a NACC.”
Following the audit office’s scathing June report on the 2020 Thales munitions deal, the Defence Department referred the matter to the NACC.
According to the ABC, after receiving the referral the NACC instructed the Defence Department to conduct the preliminary investigation. The department later said it was unable to substantiate the allegation. (See part 1.)
Douglas said the NACC did not appear to have placed sufficient weight on the seriousness of the matter, particularly as Thales is linked to several international corruption matters, operates in one of the most corrupt industries in the world, and currently manages Australian Government contracts worth billions of dollars.
He added that if Thales was an individual, “based on its past behaviour it would not be given a security clearance, and therefore no employment”.
Following the ABC’s report, Minister Conroy was asked whether he was concerned that the investigation into the unethical conduct appeared “to have hit a dead‑end, with the Anti‑Corruption Commission referring it back to the department, which then found no evidence”.
Conroy responded: “I think the important thing there is all due process was followed… All the organisations involved have investigated this matter.”
GWEO Chief, Air Marshal Leon Phillips, added: “The department has investigated that matter and cannot substantiate what was alleged. So we’ve concluded those matters.”
It is a long way from Defence Minister Richard Marles’ promise on 30 June that the matter would be “fully investigated” in a way which is “completely robust, which people have total confidence in”.
Champagne bottle “least of the concerns” about Defence probity
At a hearing of the parliament’s powerful Joint Committee on Public Accounts and Audit in November, Senator Linda Reynolds, deputy chair of the committee and a former defence minister, raised strong concerns about the 2020 Thales munitions deal.
Reynolds alluded to discrepancies between what she had been told as minister in briefings by the Defence Department and the facts contained in the report.
“When I read this audit report and remembered what had actually come up to me in the [ministerial] brief, it almost made me feel ill … and that is very consistent with the advice that is in this report that went to a different minister in 2017.”
Reynolds’ remarks corroborated the auditor-general’s report: “Defence’s advice to ministers on the tender and contract negotiations did not inform them of the extent of tender non-compliance [by Thales], [the] basis of the decision to proceed to negotiations, or [the] ‘very high risk’ nature of the negotiation schedule.” (p9)
The report also said the department’s advice in mid-2017 to then minister for defence industry Christopher Pyne was incomplete regarding the Department’s decision to proceed with Thales as sole tenderer: “The advice did not address the legal basis for the procurement method, the risks associated with a sole source procurement approach, or value for money issues — including how Defence expected to achieve value for money and maintain commercial leverage in the context of a sole source procurement.” (p10)
We’ve had a history of ANAO reports and [Defence Department] mea culpas… It’s like groundhog day
Reynolds told defence officials at the hearing: “These are not the first appalling findings by the ANAO… We’ve had a history of ANAO reports and [Defence Department] mea culpas… It’s like groundhog day… I think the bottle of champagne was the least of the concerns in relation to probity.”
She said the fact that the government was continuing to award new contracts to Thales was a concern: “You’ve inherited a smell, a big smell.”
Defence appointed a lead negotiator that was providing training to Thales at the same time
In a repeat of the future frigate contract negotiation with BAE Systems (see our Sinking Billions series), the audit report revealed (p87) that the Defence Department hired an external negotiator with a conflict of interest to lead its billion-dollar negotiations with Thales.
The joint negotiation training was provided by Scotwork to both the Thales and the Commonwealth negotiation teams at the same time and location, with no segregation. It was fully paid for by Defence.
Furthermore, in November 2019, Defence was advised by one of its lead negotiators that Thales had engaged Scotwork to deliver a negotiation course (separate to the above training). Defence’s two lead negotiators together owned 55% of Scotwork, and would benefit financially. They said they were not involved with that Thales training, that Scotwork had strict ethical walls in place, and that the revenue was “not material”. Defence accepted this and did not enquire into the dollar value of the revenue.
Defence conducted its contract negotiations with Thales from 5 December 2019 to 19 February 2020.
These are just a few of the many serious issues documented in the audit report.
“Strategic partners” or state capture?
Thales Australia’s CEO, Jeff Connolly, said the announcement of its appointment as Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance “Strategic Partner” was “proof of the enduring trust between Thales Australia and the Commonwealth”.
In her evidence to the audit committee, deputy auditor-general Rona Mellor was forthright about the use of such language by government and industry: “One of the big issues is this…nomenclature of ‘strategic partnership’. You’re actually not in partnership. You have a contract… you need to hold them to account.”
On the Thales deal, Mellor told the committee that while big international weapons contractors did “important heavy lifting in defence specialist military equipment and munitions”, keeping an “appropriate distance in our relationships” was important.
She said the audit office had “ongoing concern” about the implementation of the recommendations it issued to Defence, particularly for long-term contracts involving “strategic partners”.
The current report focused on the munitions group, “but next week we’ll go into the shipbuilding group and we’ll see the same thing, or the week after we’ll go into the Air Force and see the same thing”, Mellor said.
“There’s a really big challenge ahead for Defence. The biggest challenge, [as] this one shows, is that there is a culture in these very long-term contracts… There’s a real risk that you get captured by the provider, whether it’s in incumbency in turning contracts over, or in the nature of relationships that you form.”
Thales Australia has managed the Mulwala and Benalla munitions factories for the Commonwealth since the late 1990s. The company has consistently ranked in the Defence Department’s top three contractors, earning more than $1 billion a year from taxpayers. It has $7 billion in current contracts with the department, Austender shows.
Senator Reynolds was defence minister for the final year of the more than decade-long procurement process for the management of the munitions factories. She was the last of seven ministers to oversee the process, which began in 2009. Reynolds became defence minister in May 2019. She approved the deal, along with then finance minister Mathias Cormann, in May 2020. The now $1.4 billion contract expires in 2030.
Dutton axes third wind farm ahead of nuclear pitch
AFR Phillip Coorey, Dec 5, 2024
Peter Dutton has upped the ante on energy ahead of the release of his nuclear power policy, vowing to scrap plans for a massive wind farm off the NSW central coast if elected.
The opposition leader’s pledge to not proceed with a wind farm off the coast of the Hunter, north of Sydney, takes to three of the six wind farms proposed by the Albanese government the Coalition would abolish.
The others are off the NSW Illawarra coast and the West Australian coast. The remaining three off the Victorian and South Australian coasts are likely to be spared.
Mr Dutton made the announcement in the Labor seat of Paterson, in the Hunter Valley, where the wind farm proposal has polarised the community and which the Coalition is targeting at the next election……………………………………………………………………. more https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/dutton-axes-third-wind-farm-ahead-of-nuclear-pitch-20241205-p5kvzv
Dutton to claim nuclear rollout will end up cheaper than renewables
The Age , By Paul Sakkal, December 5, 2024
Key points
- Peter Dutton will reveal his costings for seven nuclear plants as soon as next week.
- They are expected to claim the opposition’s energy grid plan – including renewables, gas and nuclear – will cost ‘significantly less’ than Labor’s.
- The opposition claims Labor’s renewables-led approach will cost $642 billion, while the government relies on a $122 billion figure.
Peter Dutton will claim the Coalition’s nuclear-backed grid will cost less to deliver than Labor’s renewables-led approach, escalating a war over the key cost-of-living issue ahead of next year’s federal election.
The opposition leader will reveal his costings for seven government-backed nuclear plants as soon as next week. This masthead has confirmed the Coalition will claim its energy grid plan – including renewables, gas and nuclear – would cost less than Labor’s.
“It will be significantly less than Labor,” one top Liberal said of the tightly held nuclear costings. Another opposition source suggested the total cost of the Coalition’s energy system rollout would be about $500 billion. The opposition claims Labor’s plan would cost $642 billion………………………………………… https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/dutton-to-claim-nuclear-rollout-will-end-up-cheaper-than-renewables-20241205-p5kw09.html
Senior Netanyahu Adviser Served in Victorian Court facing Genocide Charges
Camp Sovereignty, December 6, 2024, https://theaimn.com/senior-netanyahu-adviser-served-in-victorian-court-facing-genocide-charges/
Mark Regev, former senior adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Australian citizen, has been served with charges of advocating genocide. The next hearing will take place at the Victorian Magistrates’ Court on 10 December 2024.
The case, initiated by Krautungalung Elder and human rights advocate Uncle Robbie Thorpe, accuses Regev of publicly endorsing actions constituting genocide during the Gaza siege. In statements broadcast on Australian media, Regev allegedly supported policies aimed at destroying the Palestinian population in Gaza, including advocating for starvation. These actions, in breach of Section 80.2D of the Criminal Code Act 1995, carry a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
This case is a significant step forward compared to ongoing International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutions involving Netanyahu and Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, as the ICC case cannot proceed until their arrests. In contrast, the prosecution of Regev is already underway.
The legal proceedings unfold against the backdrop of Australia’s shifting stance on Palestine, marked by its recent vote at the United Nations in support of a resolution demanding an end to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories. This marks a departure from Australia’s traditional alignment with the United States.
Under the Criminal Code Act 1995, this case tests Australia’s commitment to upholding justice, both locally and in the context of international accountability. With Israel invoking diplomatic immunity on Regev’s behalf, the decision to proceed with prosecution now lies with the Commonwealth and the Department of Public Prosecutions. This highlights the far-reaching implications of the case.
“This case will show whether Australia is serious about prosecuting crimes of genocide, or whether we allow our citizens to shield themselves behind bureaucracy. We have a law in place with a lower burden of proof than international law. It must be applied now to ensure accountability for actions that promote destruction and suffering” Uncle Robbie Thorpe stated.
Thorpe urges the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to take decisive action in filing an indictment against Regev. He believes this case presents an opportunity for Australia to lead in enforcing laws against genocide. “Australia has the tools, the evidence, and the obligation. Now we must act. Failure to prosecute Mark Regev for advocating genocide would be a stain on our nation’s conscience,” Uncle Robbie said.
“The charges against Mark Regev mark an important moment in the fight for accountability and justice. For far too long, leaders and officials responsible for the suffering and destruction of marginalised communities have acted with impunity. This case isn’t just about Gaza, it’s about the broader principle that no individual, no matter their position or connections, is above the law.” said Keiran Stewart-Assheton, president of the Black Peoples Union and a Traditional Owner of Wani-Wandian Country in the Yuin Nation.
If the Australian courts fail to pursue the case to its full conclusion or diplomatic immunity prevents a fair prosecution, the matter could escalate to the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC holds jurisdiction over genocide and other international crimes when domestic systems are unable or unwilling to act. With Regev already served and the case progressing, this prosecution presents an opportunity to set a precedent for domestic accountability while reinforcing global justice mechanisms.
Nuclear energy inquiry draws emotional response in Port Augusta
By Annabel Francis and Arj Ganesan, ABC North and West SA, 7 Dec 24
In short:
The select committee conducting an inquiry into nuclear power generation in Australia has triggered strong opinions from both sides of the fence.
Aboriginal leaders, resident representatives, and leaders from the mining and energy sector have spoken during a hearing at Port Augusta.
What’s next?
Should the opposition win the next election, it has promised to hold a two-and-a-half year consultation period over its nuclear plans.
The federal government’s select committee inquiry into nuclear power generation at Port Augusta has stirred strong emotions among those making a submission.
For anti-nuclear activist and Yankunytjatjara Anangu woman Karina Lester, it is a debate she is tired of having.
“Governments change, committee members change … organisations, company members, CEOs of companies change,” Ms Lester said.
“Those of us that are in the frontline are constantly needing to remind governments of the impacts of nuclear in our communities.
“Aboriginal people of South Australia have always said no to nuclear.”
Ms Lester, who gave evidence at a select committee hearing in Adelaide, describes herself as a survivor of the Emu Field nuclear tests.
She said Indigenous people had seen the impacts of nuclear technology first-hand.
Her father, Yami Lester, went blind at the age of 16 following British weapons testing in Maralinga in South Australia in the 1950s.
Ms Lester said she feared Indigenous groups would suffer if the federal opposition’s nuclear plans went ahead.
“Aboriginal communities are always the solution or pressured to be the solution for the waste issues,” she said.
“The history shows us that locations identified are locations that are First Nations or Aboriginal people’s traditional lands.”
Port Augusta’s former coal power station was one of seven sites that was earmarked as a possible location for the opposition’s nuclear energy plan.
The Nukunu Wapma Thura Aboriginal Corporation, which holds native title over the proposed site, has voiced strong opposition to any nuclear proposal.
“Aboriginal people throughout the region and state of South Australia have historically and overwhelmingly opposed nuclear energy, and the storage of its waste,” a spokesperson said.
Greg Bannon from the Flinders Local Action Group gave evidence at the public hearing in Port Augusta about the potential risk of a nuclear accident.
He has opposed nuclear technology for decades and said the time to switch to nuclear energy had passed. “I think it’s old technology, and I don’t think we need it,” he said.
Mr Bannon said any accident or error would not only have a devastating impact on the local community but also on vulnerable marine ecologies, such as the giant Australian cuttlefish that aggregates about 50 kilometres away from Port Augusta……………………………https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12-06/nuclear-energy-hearing-emotional-port-augusta/104694596
Peter Dutton cops backlash over push to build seven nuclear power stations in Australia
Opposition wants nuclear power plants over Anthony Albanese’s renewables
Daily Mail 4th Dec 2024, By BRETT LACKEY FOR DAILY MAIL AUSTRALIA
Aussies have hit back at plans to build nuclear power stations in the country as the Coalition ramps up its push to establish seven sites as part of its election promise.
Parliament’s House Select Committee on Nuclear Energy is investigating the proposal and is travelling around the country hearing views from local communities.
At a meeting in Traralgon in Victoria’s Gippsland region on Tuesday angry locals fired up at the plan, which would see one of the new nuclear plants built at the currently winding down Loy Yang coal plant just 10 minutes out of town.
The other six locations Peter Dutton has outlined for nuclear plants are at the coal plant sites of Tarong and Callide in Queensland, Liddell and Mount Piper in NSW, Port Augusta in SA and Muja in WA.
‘We do not need nuclear in Australia. We need to be pushing more renewable energy and the technology will develop more and more as we go to keep the lights on,’ president of community group Voices of the Valley, Wendy Farmer, told the meeting.
Shadow energy minister Ted O’Brien, also the committee’s deputy chair, asked if it was ‘just a no’ from Ms Farmer or if she was interested in studying whether nuclear could be a safe and effective form of electricity.
‘The Coalition have told us that they would consult with us for two and a half years but then they would go ahead with nuclear, whether we wanted it or not and our community would have no rights of veto,’ Ms Farmer fired back.
‘How can we trust the Coalition to have an independent study when you say proposal but where’s the proposal?’
Darren McCubbin, the CEO of Gippsland Climate Change Network, got a standing ovation when he told the meeting renewables were ‘ready to go’ while nuclear power stations would require years of consultations and reports.
‘I’d like to congratulate Mr O’Brien for recognising that we don’t have the science, that we need a work plan, that we need two and a half years of consultation,’ Mr McCubbin said.
‘Good on him for coming here and saying we don’t know the answers and we need to find them because they don’t have the answers.’
Mr McCubbin pointed to the 2GW of Victorian offshore wind power projects slated to be online by 2032, which would increase to 5GW by 2035.
Look right now we’ve got a stream towards renewables, we’ve got targets in place. We’ve got an industry waiting to go, we’ve got people coming from all over the world looking in Gippsland and saying we have a way of transitioning out [of coal-fired electricity].
‘We’ve got the science, we’ve got the community [support]. We’ve had Star of the South [wind farm project] here for five years doing community consultation and I appreciate that you recognise you haven’t done that.
‘So we’re ready to go and putting things off for two and a half years to have work plan after work plan and work plan is not a solution for jobs and growth within our region.’
A recent Demos AU poll of 6709 adults between July 2 and November 24 found that 26 per cent of women said nuclear would be good for Australia, compared with 51 per cent of men.
But only one in three of the men surveyed were willing to live near a nuclear plant.
Almost two-thirds (63 per cent) of women said they don’t want to live near a nuclear plant and more than half (57 per cent) said transporting radioactive waste isn’t worth the risk.
The report card follows polling by Farmers For Climate Action that found 70 per cent of rural Australians support clean energy projects on farmland in their local areas and 17 per cent were opposed.
That support came with conditions, including proper consultation and better access to reliable energy.
Sanne de Swart, co-ordinator of the Nuclear Free Campaign with Friends of the Earth Melbourne, claimed nuclear electricity would ‘increase power bills, increase taxes and increase climate pollution’.
The independent Climate Council said it was concerned the coalition was relying on one private sector ‘base case‘ for nuclear costings rather than expert advice such as from the Australian Energy Market Operator.
‘What’s crucial is that any new investment is made at the least cost to Australian consumers,’ a council spokesperson said. ‘Only renewables – solar, wind, hydro – together with energy storage is capable of delivering on this, and it’s being built right now,’ the council said.
Minister for Climate Change Chris Bowen recently took a swipe at Peter Dutton and the Coalition’s nuclear proposal saying that it would take too long to get the plants up and running.
‘Net zero by 2050 is not optional. Which means the critical decade is now.’
With six years to go to reach the legislated target of a 43 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, he said the nation was on track to meet it and to make 82 per cent renewable electricity in the national grid by 2030.
On Wednesday the House Select Committee was told legal requirements to make the former coal sites safe to build nuclear reactors will take decades of rehabilitation before they can be used.
‘We’re talking significant periods of time of two or three decades,’ Victoria’s Mine Land Rehabilitation Authority chief executive Jen Brereton said. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14154479/Australia-nuclear-power-plant-locations-backlash.html
The seven ways the Federal Coalition could cook the books on nuclear costings
December 5, 2024, The AIM Network, Climate Council, https://theaimn.com/the-seven-ways-the-federal-coalition-could-cook-the-books-on-nuclear-costings/
Australians are being kept in the dark about the true costs of the Federal Coalition’s risky and expensive nuclear scheme.
The Federal Coalition’s heavy reliance on the first of two Frontier Economics reports paints a damning picture of the methods they may use to fudge the nuclear numbers and mislead Australians. We’ve already seen them cherry-pick numbers and use them to make misleading claims in Parliament.
Climate Councillor and economist Nicki Hutley said: “The Federal Coalition’s nuclear scheme would cost Australians a bomb. It’s a risky, expensive fantasy that would see Australians paying more than $100 billion for a fraction of the electricity we need. The real danger is delaying real solutions–like building more renewables, which is the most affordable way to keep the lights on.”
The Climate Council has identified five furphies Australians are likely to see in the Federal Coalition’s nuclear costings:
1) Comparing apples with oranges: We’ve already seen the Federal Coalition use inaccurate comparisons in the first Frontier Economics report on the cost of the shift to renewables. They inflated the cost by including ongoing fuel and maintenance expenses—which we’re already paying and which will actually drop in a renewables-led grid. On top of that, they didn’t use present value terms, a standard economic practice that accounts for the true cost over time.
Nicki Hutley, Climate Councilor and Senior Economist, said: “It’s alarming to see the Federal Coalition knowingly compare costs that are for totally different things. If we’re going to have a debate on the economics of building renewable power and storage, it needs to be based on best practice economics, not a false and misleading comparison.”
2) Excluding the cost of attempting to keep our ageing coal stations open: AEMO expects all our outdated, unreliable and polluting coal-fired power stations to close by 2038 at the latest, with over 90% shutting down in the next 10 years. But the Federal Coalition wants to keep these creaking old coal power stations open while waiting at least 15 years or more for nuclear reactors. This would cost taxpayers a bomb in constant maintenance and fault repairs. Keeping just one coal power station open, Eraring in NSW, could cost taxpayers more than $225 million per year. Renewable power back by storage is the only solution ready now to fill that gap left by coal and secure reliable, affordable power for Australian homes and businesses.
3) Excluding the cost of managing highly radioactive nuclear waste:Toxic nuclear waste needs to be safely stored for 100,000 years – an enormous and costly responsibility. In Canada, storing the long-term waste from their nuclear program in an underground facility is expected to cost at least $33 billion AUD, excluding the costs already incurred to manage waste on nuclear reactor sites.
Nicki Hutley, Climate Councilor and Senior Economist, said: “Any plans to build nuclear reactors must include the staggering long-term costs of managing highly radioactive nuclear waste. Ignoring these costs now will unfairly burden our kids, grandkids and future generations.”
-Advertisement-
4) Failing to consider the cost of climate change: The Federal Coalition’s nuclear scheme won’t cut climate pollution. In fact, building nuclear reactors would mean burning more polluting coal and gas in the meantime, which could see a further 1.5 billion tonnes more harmful climate pollution produced by 2050 – the equivalent of running the Eraring coal power station in NSW for another 126 years. Australians would pay the price in worsening unnatural disasters and skyrocketing insurance costs.
Nicki Hutley, Climate Councilor and Senior Economist, said: “Nuclear would cost us dearly, by delaying urgent cuts to climate pollution that would expose Australians to more unnatural disasters like bushfires, floods and heatwaves and driving up economic losses through higher insurance costs and disaster recovery bills. We should be focusing on cutting costs and climate pollution by rolling out more clean, reliable and affordable renewable power.
5) Ignoring Australia’s growing electricity needs: As Australia’s population and economy grows, keeping up with the community’s electricity needs is essential. The Australian Electricity Market Operator’s plan for our grid, the Integrated System Plan, expects power demand to double by 2050. We need more power to meet this need, and any assessment of cost needs to account for this. Assuming less might make costs look cheaper, but is inaccurate.
6) Ignoring the risk of cost blowouts: The Federal Coalition’s nuclear costings are likely to rely on rose-tinted assumptions, ignoring the very real possibility of massive cost overruns and delays that have plagued international nuclear projects.
For example, the UK’s Hinkley Point C energy facility is running 14 years late, at a cost three times its original estimate—now sitting at a staggering $90 billion AUD. Assuming nothing will go wrong with nuclear reactors in Australia flies in the face of international experience and puts taxpayers at enormous financial risk.
Nicki Hutley, Climate Councilor and Senior Economist, said: “Nuclear is simply a non-starter for Australia. The risks are immense—blowouts in cost and time, unresolved waste storage issues, and outdated technology. Projects like the UK’s Hinkley Point C show that nuclear is a financial black hole, while renewables are delivering results today.”
7) Ignoring the cost of transmission upgrades: The Federal Coalition assumes nuclear reactors can avoid the costs of necessary transmission upgrades, despite these investments being approved and supported by the previous Liberal-National Government.
Australia’s electricity grid needs substantial upgrades to meet growing energy demands and replace ageing coal-fired power stations. Building reactors near old coal stations won’t avoid the need for new transmission: the transmission previously used for coal is already being used by new batteries, wind and solar, and more investment is being planned. New transmission is needed no matter which energy source we build, and will make our grid stronger and more efficient.
Amanda McKenzie, CEO of the Climate Council, said: “Peter Dutton could cook the books with some creative accounting to sell this fantasy. Our old coal plants are retiring in the next decade, and we need to keep investing in low cost renewables to keep the lights on, create thousands of jobs in regional Australia, and ensure we cut climate pollution further and faster.
“Let’s focus on what’s already working. Renewables are cutting pollution, creating jobs, and lowering power bills right now.”
A sneak preview of Peter Dutton’s nuclear costings
Tristan Edis, Dec 2, 2024, , https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-sneak-preview-of-peter-duttons-nuclear-costings/
Any day now, we should be provided with an estimate from the Liberal-National Coalition and/or Frontier Economics on what Peter Dutton’s plan for nuclear power will cost us.
Keep in mind we already have plenty of sources of information for what nuclear power costs based on real-world experience.
The chart below,[ on original] based on analysis by myself and Johanna Bowyer, shows the power price required for nuclear power plants to be commercially viable compared to current wholesale energy costs passed on to residential power consumers.
These power prices are based on the cost of actual power plants which have either been committed to construction or which provided tender construction contract offers over the past 20 years across Europe and North America.
Our research indicates that conventional nuclear power stations cost anywhere between $14.9 to $27.5 million per megawatt to construct. They also accumulate significant finance interest costs over a lengthy construction period ranging between 9 to 18 years.
While yet to be commercialised small modular reactors are promised to achieve shorter build times, they don’t exist, except on the drawing board.
The only one that has progressed to a construction contract in the developed world would have cost $28.9 million per megawatt. These are the range of costs and build times that the Coalition and/or Frontier Economics should be using if they want to be realistic.
This would lead to the uncomfortable conclusion that household power bills would need to rise by around $665 per year for nuclear power plants to recover their costs from the electricity market.
Oddly, Ted O’Brien and Angus Taylor didn’t think real world experience with nuclear projects was a valid basis for assessing the cost of their plan. That, of course, makes one wonder what they might have in mind.
Here are four ways they might instead approach their costing:
1) Apply the shoulda, coulda, woulda approach to costing nuclear power plants also known as a “nth of a kind” costing;
2) Assume all transmission upgrade costs can be avoided with nuclear even though the prior Liberal-National Government approved and supported these transmission projects when in government;
3) Assume coal power plants never grow old;
4) Assume the damage from emissions released prior to 2050 don’t matter
We look at those claims in detail.
1) Look out for ‘NOAK’ or the shoulda, coulda, woulda approach to costing
Advocates for nuclear power aren’t terribly fond of using costs based on real-world experience. Instead they like to apply the shoulda, coulda, woulda approach to power plant costing.
This is where they assume away all the things that almost always go wrong with nuclear power plant construction, and imagine what should, could, or would happen if the real world would just stop being so damn unco-operative.
This typically requires that:
1. Construction companies and component suppliers stop making mistakes and stop seeking to claim contract variations;
2. Members of the community and politicians welcome nuclear projects with open arms and stop seeking to obstruct and delay them;
3. Nuclear plant designers get their designs perfect right from the start, avoiding the need to make adjustments on the fly as construction unfolds;
4. Financiers stop worrying about risk;
5. The community and politicians loosen-up about the small risk of radioactive meltdowns and apply less onerous safety requirements;
6. Construction staff aren’t tempted away to non-nuclear projects with offers of better pay or a more reliable stream of work;
7. Safety regulators work co-operatively and flexibly (compliantly?) with industry; and
8. Power companies en masse commit to ordering lots of reactors from a single supplier well in advance of when needed to enable the supply chain of nuclear equipment suppliers to achieve mass economies of scale and learning.
You generally know that these types of assumptions have been made in a nuclear costing because that costing will be described as a “nth of a kind” or NOAK cost.
The idea here is that incredibly high costs that were incurred in building all the prior nuclear power plants were an anomaly because they involved a whole bunch of mistakes and inefficiencies that the industry will learn from.
So, after they build several more and get progressively better, they’ll eventually reach the “Nth” number of plants, and all the problems that made prior plants so expensive will be ironed out.
At exactly what number plant do we reach N?
Well that’s usually a bit rubbery.
Under pressure from the nuclear lobby, you’ll find this NOAK costing approach is commonly adopted by the International Energy Agency, the US Department of Energy and even Australia’s CSIRO adopted a nuclear NOAK costing for its GenCost publication.
Unfortunately, while these agencies are generally good sources of information, the Nth power plant seems to always be a few more nuclear power plants away from being realised.
In reality the cost of building nuclear reactors has historically got worse rather than better over time in the western world.
The chart below [on original] illustrates the construction cost experience for pressurised water reactors in the US (in blue) and France (in red). Note this was based on a 2011 paper and omits the more recent and even worse cost experience detailed in the report by Bowyer and myself.
Bent Flyvberg – a professor in construction management at Oxford University and author of the bestselling book, How Big Things Get Done, has helpfully compiled a huge database of how major construction projects across the globe have performed against their original budgets.
This database reveals just how unreliable are the costings provided by the nuclear industry and its proponents. As the chart below published by Flyvberg reveals, the mean cost overrun of nuclear power projects stands at 120%, with only Olympic Games and Nuclear Waste Storage Facilities managing worse cost over-runs.
Meanwhile look at what types of projects perform well [graph at top of page]– notice anything?
For the journalists reading this article your task is simple – when the Coalition or Frontier Economics release their nuclear plan costing you need to ask them the following:
(1) Can you please provide us with a written assurance from the CEO of an experienced nuclear technology provider, like Westinghouse, EDF or Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power, confirming they are willing to enter into a fixed price contract to build a nuclear power plant in Australia for the cost and timeframe used in your costing?
If instead they cite to you the experience of the Barakah Plant in the United Arab Emirates let’s say, then you can always ask them:
So, like the United Arab Emirates, will you be:
– allowing the mass importation of construction labour from developing countries;
– removing the right of workers to collectively organise and bargain;
– exempting nuclear construction projects from paying Australian award wages; and
– banning the right to peacefully protest?
2) All transmission expansion costs are the fault of Labor and can be avoided with nuclear power
It should be acknowledged that transmission network expansion projects in this country are also being hit by large budget blow outs which involve multi-billion dollar costs. We need to do a far better and more judicious job in the roll out of transmission projects in this country.
It’s also true that several of these projects are critical to supporting ongoing expansion of wind and solar power. Ted O’Brien and David Littleproud have been highly critical of these new transmission projects and claimed extra transmission costs can be avoided by rolling out nuclear.
Given this, their forthcoming costing will probably suggest all of these new transmission costs can be sheeted home to Labor’s Renewable Energy Policies.
But this would also indicate that O’Brien and Littleproud suffer from amnesia. That’s because the major transmission expansions which are incurring the largest costs were actively pushed by the former Coalition Government which both of them served in.
Read more: A sneak preview of Peter Dutton’s nuclear costingsThe prior government “welcomed” and helped underwrite the new 900 kilometre transmission interconnector between SA and NSW.
In the lead up to the 2019 election, they vowed to build a second electricity interconnector between Tasmanian and the mainland.
In January 2020 the Federal Coalition entered into a funding deal with the NSW Government to upgrade transmission lines across north, central and southern NSW.
As part of the 2020 budget, Angus Taylor and a range of National Party MPs announced funding support for an 840km transmission line across inland Queensland which they declared was a “commitment to regional jobs, industry development and affordable reliable power.”
Then, leading into the 2022 election, they announced they would underwrite construction works on a major new transmission line between NSW and Victoria.
Then Energy Minister Angus Taylor’s press release at the time spoke glowingly about the benefits of new transmission, stating:
“Our investment in this project will support reliable electricity supply, deliver substantial cost savings and help keep the lights on for Australian families, businesses and industries.
This builds on the Morrison government’s record of judicious investment of over $800 million in priority transmission projects recommended by AEMO’s Integrated System Plan – projects that stack up for consumers.”
3) Relying on coal power plants that never grow old
It is almost guaranteed that the Coalition’s costing model will assume we can rely on the existing coal power stations to keep powering on for another decade or two with no deterioration in their reliability, before they then switch to nuclear power.
This is a very handy assumption to make because it allows you to avoid or delay significant costs involved in building the new, replacement power stations before the nuclear plants miraculously come to the rescue.
Yet while it might be a handy modelling assumption, it probably isn’t a realistic one.
To keep coal power plants reliable, especially when they are several decades old, requires ongoing significant expenditure on maintenance and replacement parts. Plus, even with this expenditure there can reach a point where a plant is so old it will continue to suffer serious reliability problems.
A good example of the risks and limitations of refurbishment is the case of the attempt to refurbish Western Australia’s Muja A and B coal generating units of 240 megawatts.
In 2007 these units, which were approaching 50 years of age, were mothballed. But by 2009 the WA Government announced they would be recommissioned due to a gas shortage that had afflicted the state. At the time the cost was estimated to be $100m.
The cost of refurbishment subsequently blew out to $290 million and in 2012 one of the units suffered an explosion due to corroded piping, injuring a worker.
A subsequent investigation highlighted a range of technical problems with the plant that made refurbishment challenging, but in 2013 the government chose to press on and sink a further $45 million into the project, claiming it would have a lifetime of 15 years and ultimately recover its costs.
However, even after refurbishment was completed it was reported by the West Australian newspaper the generating units were “plagued by operational and reliability problems, generating electricity just 20 per cent of the time. By 2018 the WA Government decided to cut their losses and shut Muja A and B permanently.
AGL’s Liddell Power Station is another case in point. AGL argued that a ten year life extension would cost $900m, and decided it wasn’t worth it. A government taskforce which sought to second guess AGL on the closure noted,
“a Liddell extension meets the maximum power output requirement.
This means it could provide sufficient capacity to maintain current levels of reliability in NSW as long as it is actually available during peak demand conditions. However, the increasing risk of outages as the plant ages gives rise to an increasing possibility those outages would lead to supply shortfalls.
Liddell already has a high outage rate compared with other NSW coal generators…. There is a risk that upgrades to make the plant compliant with safety and other regulation would not alter its upward trajectory of faults and unplanned outages.”
The other issue is that owners of power plants are likely to face considerable difficulty raising finance to undertake such refurbishment.
Delta Electricity, the owner of the Vales Point B coal power station, revealed in a rule change request to the AEMC that it was facing significant difficulty accessing bank finance stating, “A significant number of financial institutions…are no longer providing financing facilities to fossil fuel generators”.
The rule change request asked that Delta be able to provide cash, rather than a bank guarantee to AEMO to meet prudential requirements for trading purposes.
It explained that the bank providing its current guarantee was unwilling to continue with this arrangement because lending to a coal generator was in breach of environmental policies governing its financing practices.
In a search to find another lender Delta found, “during the refinancing process that 13 of the 15 lenders declined due to ESG [Environment, Social and Governance] constraints, which included the Big-4 Australian banks.
“Both of the remaining financial institutions were prepared to offer a bank guarantee facility to provide credit support related only to requirements for mining rehabilitation obligations and renewable Power Purchase Agreements.”
Some conservative politicians might like to pass this off as some short-term, woke fashion that will pass once they reach power. But it won’t pass, because bankers don’t like to lend money to risky commercial ventures.
Some conservative politicians might think global warming is an idea promoted by a mass conspiracy of meteorological science agencies across the globe to impose a socialist, world-wide government. However, most people think that’s a bit far-fetched.
Conservative politicians that think climate change is a hoax aren’t always in power, so bankers recognise there is a significant risk coal generators will be subject to emission control policies that will undermine their commercial viability.
This isn’t a distant risk, because such policies (which often are targeted towards supporting growth of renewable energy) have already been implemented.
4) The damage caused by power plant emissions in the years prior to 2050 don’t matter
Carbon dioxide and a range of other greenhouse gas emissions released by fossil fuel extraction and combustion last many decades once released into the atmosphere. Consequently, the extent of global warming is a function of the accumulated stock of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere built up over time.
It isn’t a function solely of emissions in the single year of 2050. If we manage to achieve net zero emissions in 2050, but have polluted the hell out of the atmosphere in the preceding years then global warming will be very bad indeed.
A tonne of CO2 emitted this year and each of the years preceding 2050 will cause damage to society that is worth something to avoid. Any economist worthy of calling themselves an economist knows that the value of this avoided damage needs to be taken into account in any attempt to properly cost alternative options for our electricity system.
The Australian Energy Regulator provides one such option for valuing this in its paper – Valuing emissions reductions.
It should be noted the AER’s attaches significantly lower value to avoiding emissions than the United States Environmental Protection Agency recommends in the years prior to 2050, and very far below values used by the UK Government.
If the Liberal-National Party’s policy leads to slower emission reductions (even if they ultimately deliver net zero by 2050) this carries a serious penalty for our children and future children.
If it is ignored from their economic analysis, can we come to any other conclusion than the Liberal-National Party think climate change is so unimportant its impacts can be ignored?
Tristan Edis is director of analysis and advisory at Green Energy Markets. Green Energy Markets provides data and analysis on energy and carbon abatement certificate markets to assist clients make informed investment, trading and policy decisions.
Australia’s top environment groups – Submission to Government Inquiry into Nuclear Power Generation in Australia.
Friends of the Earth Australia
Australian Conservation Foundation
Greenpeace Australia Pacific
The Wilderness Society
Climate Action Network Australia
Nature Conservation Council (NSW)
Environment Victoria
Conservation SA
Queensland Conservation Council
Conservation Council of WA
Environment Centre NT
Solutions for Climate Australia
Arid Lands Environment Centre
Environment Tasmania
Environs Kimberley
Cairns and Far North Environment Centre
Submission to the House Select Committee on Nuclear Energy Inquiry into Nuclear Power Generation in Australia. November 2024 – (23 pages)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Our groups maintain that federal and state legal prohibitions against the construction of
nuclear power reactors have served Australia well. We strongly support the retention of
these prudent, long-standing protections.
Claims that nuclear reactors could be generating electricity in Australia by 2035‒37 do not
withstand scrutiny. Introducing nuclear power to Australia would necessitate at least 10
years for licensing approvals and project planning, and around 10 years for reactor
construction. Nuclear power reactors could only begin operating around the mid-2040s at
the earliest. Most or all of Australia’s remaining coal power plants will be closed long before
nuclear reactors could begin supplying electricity.
Small modular reactors (SMRs) do not exist. The so-called operating SMRs in Russia and
China were not built using serial factory production methods. They could not even be called
prototype SMRs since there are no plans to mass-produce these reactor types using serial
factory production methods. SMRs are best thought of as Smoke & Mirror Reactors: they do
not exist. A few small reactors are under construction (in China, Russia and Argentina) but
once again serial factory production methods are not being deployed.
Construction timelines for the so-called SMRs in Russia and China were protracted: 9 years
in China and 12 years in Russia. In both countries, planning plus construction took 20 years
or more.
After costs rose to a staggering A$31 billion per gigawatt, US company NuScale abandoned
its flagship SMR project in Idaho last year. This led the Australian Coalition parties to
abandon their SMR-only nuclear policy. Worse was to follow. In mid-2024, French utility EDF
announced that it had suspended development of its Nuward SMR and reoriented the
project “to a design based on proven technological building blocks.” In May 2023, Ultra Safe
Nuclear claimed at an Australian Senate hearing that the company is building SMRs in North
America. In fact, the company has not begun building SMRs anywhere and in October 2024
the company announced that is pursuing a sale process under Chapter 11 of the US
Bankruptcy Code.
Many other SMR projects have failed. The French government abandoned the planned
ASTRID demonstration fast reactor in 2019; Babcock & Wilcox abandoned its Generation
mPower SMR project in the US in 2017; Transatomic Power gave up on its molten salt
reactor R&D in 2018; MidAmerican Energy gave up on its plans for SMRs in Iowa in 2013;
TerraPower abandoned its plan for a prototype fast neutron reactor in China in 2018; and
the US and UK governments abandoned consideration of ‘integral fast reactors’ for
plutonium disposition in 2015 and 2019, respectively.
The SMR sector is littered with failed and abandoned projects, false claims and false dawns
Large reactor construction projects have also suffered catastrophic cost overruns and
delays. In both of Australia’s AUKUS partner countries, early cost estimates were proven to
be wrong by an order of magnitude:
- One project in the US was abandoned in 2017 after A$13.9 billion was wasted on the
failed project, in South Carolina. Another project ‒ the twin-reactor Vogtle project in the
state of Georgia ‒ reached completion at a cost 12 times higher than early estimates, and 6‒
7 years behind schedule. Not a single reactor is currently under construction in the US. Not
one. - In the UK, the Hinkley Point twin-reactor project was meant to be complete in 2017 but
construction didn’t even begin until 2018 and the latest cost estimate is 11.5 times higher
than early estimates. No other reactors are under construction in the UK. The UK National
Audit Office estimates that taxpayer subsidies for the Hinkley Point project could amount to
£30 billion (A$58.4 billion). The Hinkley Point reactors are being built by French utility EDF.
France’s only recent domestic reactor construction project has also been a disaster: the
reactor is still not operating 17 years after construction began and costs increased six-fold to - A$31 billion.
If we were to make the heroic assumption ‒ the absurd assumption ‒ that reactor
construction projects in Australia would fare as well (or as badly) as those in the US and the
UK despite Australia’s lack of experience and expertise, they would be 20+ year projects and
costs would range from A$23.8 ‒ 27.9 billion per gigawatt. Or A$31 billion per gigawatt for
unproven NuScale SMR technology.
The two most significant economic modelling studies of Australia’s energy options are the
Net Zero Australia 2023 analysis and CSIRO’s annual GenCost analyses. Both make extremely
generous assumptions about nuclear costs ‒ indeed both assume costs several times lower
than real-world experience in the UK and the US ‒ yet nuclear power is still found to be
uneconomic in both studies.
Pursuing the nuclear path would be a recipe for increased power bills, increased taxes and
increased greenhouse emissions. And it would pose unnecessary risks of catastrophic
accidents and produce high-level nuclear waste for future generations of Australians to
manage for millennia.
There are currently no operating deep underground repositories for high-level nuclear waste anywhere in the world. The one operating deep underground repository for long- lived intermediate-level nuclear waste − the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in the US state of New Mexico ‒ suffered a chemical explosion in a waste barrel in 2014 due to inept management and inadequate regulation.
Efforts to establish national radioactive waste facilities (repositories and stores) in Australia
for low- and intermediate-level waste have repeatedly failed since the 1990s. Decades of
failure do not inspire confidence that far more complex high-level nuclear waste challenges
from a nuclear power program would be responsibly managed in Australia.
Claims that converting coal power plants to nuclear plants will be straightforward and advantageous rest on untested assumptions rather than real-world success stories. Coal-to-nuclear transitions could potentially reduce nuclear costs by using some existing
infrastructure but nuclear power would still be far more expensive than firmed renewables
(i.e. renewable systems with storage capacity). No coal power plants have been repurposed
as nuclear plants in the US or the UK, so purported synergies and cost savings are
speculative.
There is no social license to introduce nuclear power to Australia. The Coalition’s nuclear
power policy is not supported by state governments in the five states being considered.
There is little or no support from Coalition parties in those states. The nuclear policy is not
supported by the energy industry, including the owners of the sites being targeted for
nuclear reactors. The policy is not supported by scientists. It is not supported by the public ‒
nuclear power recently regained its status as Australian’s least popular energy source ‒ or
by First Nations communities. The Coalition’s nuclear policy does not even enjoy widespread
support within the Coalition: deep rifts are evident.
While nuclear power has been stagnant for more than 20 years, renewable energy is
growing strongly around the world. Last year, nuclear power capacity fell by 1.7 gigawatts
while renewable additions amounted to 507 gigawatts ‒ record growth for the 22nd
consecutive year. This year, the same pattern is repeating: nuclear stagnation and record
renewables growth. Nuclear power accounts for a declining share of global electricity
generation ‒ currently 9.1%, barely half its historic peak ‒ whereas the renewables share
has grown to 30.2%. The International Energy Agency expects turbocharged growth in the
coming years with renewables reaching 46% by 2030. Renewable energy sources currently
generate over three times more electricity than nuclear reactors, and will likely generate
five times more by the end of the decade.
The energy transition is well underway in Australia, with renewables supplying nearly 40%
of the National Electricity Market. Nuclear power has no place in this transition. As
Australia’s leading scientific organisation CSIRO says, nuclear power “does not provide an
economically competitive solution in Australia” and “won’t be able to make a meaningful
contribution to achieving net zero emissions by 2050.”……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………more https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Select_Committee_on_Nuclear_Energy/Nuclearpower/Submissions
‘Unprecedented’ climate extremes are everywhere. Our baselines for what’s normal will need to change
November 28, 2024 , https://theconversation.com/unprecedented-climate-extremes-are-everywhere-our-baselines-for-whats-normal-will-need-to-change-244298
Extreme temperature and rainfall events are increasing around the world, including Australia. What makes them extreme is their rarity and severity compared to the typical climate.
A region’s “climate” is defined by a 30-year average of mainly rainfall and temperature. Increasingly, these climate definitions have become less appropriate – we need to look at events over shorter time periods to gain a more accurate picture.
We can see this in the recent worldwide proliferation of extreme flooding and prolonged heatwaves.
Using southern Australia as a prime example, our newly published research in Academia Environmental Sciences and Sustainability shows that machine learning techniques can help identify key climate drivers, supporting a redefinition of climate in a warming world.
Increasing ‘flash’ events
In Australia, eastern coastal regions of Queensland and New South Wales continue to receive record downpours and flash floods, interspersed by dry periods of a few months to a few years.
In stark contrast, southern coastal regions are drying and facing more extreme heatwaves. With already parched vegetation and catastrophic fire dangers, this region is experiencing drought conditions due to decreased cool season rainfall and increased temperatures.
Notably, flash droughts and flash floods have adversely affected both agricultural crop yields and grazing pasture quality. Flash droughts greatly reduce moisture for germination. Flash floods ruin crops close to harvest time.
The problem with these “flash” events is just how difficult they are to forecast. To make more accurate seasonal and annual predictions for rainfall and temperatures, we need to update our climate models. But how do we know which climate drivers need to be included?
Seeking a new normal
To keep track of typical climate conditions and provide context for weather and climate forecasts, the World Meteorological Organization uses a set of data products known as climatological standard normals.
They define climate as averages of monthly, seasonal and annual weather-related variables such as temperature and rainfall, over consecutive 30-year periods.
Climate normals can be used to assess how typical of the current climate a particular event was in a given location. It’s how we arrive at temperature anomalies.
For example, to tell whether a year was relatively “hot” or “cool”, we look at the anomaly – the difference between the average temperature for the calendar year in question, compared to the climate normal.
But extreme variations are now occurring in periods of ten years or even shorter. Consequently, multiple increases and decreases can cancel each other out over a 30-year period. This would hide the large changes in statistics of weather variables within that period.
For example, large rainfall changes in average monthly, seasonal and annual amounts can be hidden within 30-year averages. Global warming often amplifies or diminishes the impacts of multiple climate driver phases within approximately ten-year periods. When averaged over 30 consecutive years, some information is lost.
What did we find?
Over the past decade or so, machine learning (where computers learn from past data to make inferences about the future) has become a powerful tool for detecting potential links between global warming and extreme weather events. This is referred to as attribution.
Machine learning techniques are simple to code and are well-suited to the highly repetitive task of searching through numerous combinations of observational data for possible triggers of severe weather events.
In our new study, machine learning helped us untangle the dominant climate drivers responsible for recent flash flood rainfall on the east coast of Australia, and a lack of rainfall on the southern coast.
Along the southern coast, the cool season from May to October is typically produced by mid-latitude westerly winds. In recent years these winds were farther away from the Australian continents, resulting in the recent drought of 2017–19 and flash drought of 2023–24.
In contrast, after the 2020–22 La Niña, the east coast continues to experience wetter conditions. These come from generally higher than average sea-surface temperatures off the east coast and Pacific Ocean, due to the presence of onshore winds.
Machine learning identified the dominant drivers of the scenario above: the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, the Southern Annular Mode, the Indian Ocean Dipole, and both local and global sea surface temperatures.
A key finding was the prominence of global warming as an attribute, both individually and in combination with other climate drivers. Climate drivers and their combinations can change with increasing global warming over shorter periods that contain extremes of climate. Hence, the use of 30-year periods as climate normals becomes less useful.
Finding regional attributes for better forecasting
Climate models often disagree on the climate drivers likely to be relevant to extreme events.
A key feature of machine learning is the ability to deal with multi-source data by identifying regional attributes. We can combine possible climate-driver predictors with high-resolution climate model predictions, especially after the climate model data are downsized to cover specific regions of concern. This can help with extreme event forecasting at a local scale.
Scientists are continuously developing new methods for applying machine learning to weather and climate prediction.
The scientific consensus is that global warming has dramatically increased the frequency of extreme rainfall and temperature events. However, the impacts are not uniform across the world, or even across Australia. Some regions have been more affected than others.
Currently there is no single alternative definition to the traditional 30-year climate normal, given the variable impacts across the planet. Each region will need to determine its own relevant climate time period definition – and machine learning tools can help.
Frisson vs fission in nuke fantasy vs facts
What’s hot and what’s not in the contest of ideas? The Grattan Institute reckons SMRs are too hot to handle and renewables play it cool.
by MURRAY HOGARTH, 26 November 2024, https://thepolitics.com.au/frisson-vs-fission-in-nuke-fantasy-vs-facts/?fbclid=IwY2xjawGzOJ9leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHdspzuMHENz02Lj8EZ5cQ2dLAjLtF07_Y9DOMfUzUO4galMDnSzr7KEP3w_aem_VAbXVviTwHaKR6W26dn-Rg
This week the quickfire Senate inquiry into a social media age ban has been hit with 15,000 submissions in a bit over 24 hours. Meanwhile, the months-long House select committee inquiry into nuclear energy is yet to hit 300.
Sure most of the social media age ban submissions will follow a template propagated by vested-interest outrage from Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, X/Twitter owner and now self-styled “First Bro” in the Trump US presidency team. But the raw numbers are a sobering reminder of what’s hot and what’s not when it comes to voter attention and the political sausage-making machine and, to borrow the new word of the year, the “enshittification” of our public policy decision-making.
Of course it’s not apples and apples to compare the social media age ban and the fate of the energy transition. The former is an impossibly subjective behavioural challenge for society, here and internationally, which could be rushed into law this week for pre-election political expediency. The latter is a far-reaching, fundamental matter of economic and environmental strategy for the nation, which will be decided one way or the other at a federal election by May at the latest.
Will it continue to be renewables-led with a gas top-up under the current Labor government? Or a switch to nuclear-led under a resurrected Coalition government, keeping dirty coal for longer and burning a lot more carbon-polluting gas for 15 to 20 years while reactors get legalised, planned and built?
Reality bites
The last time Australia had a national nuclear energy inquiry, in 2019, about 300 submissions were received, and a number of the same interested parties are back in similar numbers for the 2024 version of the debate which has been running for more than 60 years. The too-niche nuclear contest is like that. Ideologically enduring. Factually selective. Passionately partisan. Conducted largely removed from mainstream political sentiment or awareness of detail, and also remote from economic reality.
Yet it’s of monumental national importance, given that the energy transition will decide both the shape and success of the economy in the 21st century, and how we respond to the great global imperative of climate action and net zero decarbonisation by 2050. Which is where a relatively brief submission to the nuclear energy inquiry from the Grattan Institute, the widely respected independent public policy think-tank, becomes worthy of particular attention.
Titled “Nuclear energy for Australia? Not Plan A and probably not Plan B”, the Grattan submission has been written by energy experts Tony Wood and Alison Reeve, and it reflects a facts-over-fantasy approach to the question it poses. For starters, it considered the same question more than a decade ago, in 2012, and finds not much has changed. Except, that is, that the Liberal-National Coalition has put nuclear energy at the heart of its climate and energy election pitch, and is leading in the national polls.
Fraught with danger
Grattan says:
“Nuclear power generation is banned in Australia. The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 both prohibit nuclear power. Similar prohibitions exist under the laws of every state and territory. Recent interest in nuclear power and the initiation of this inquiry have been largely triggered by a proposal from the federal Coalition for nuclear power to be part of its policy platform for the next federal election.”
Cost and technology uncertainty was (and remains) the key barrier:
“Grattan’s headline conclusion in 2012 was that uncertainty about the probable cost of nuclear power in Australia would continue until there was a weight of practical experience in deploying current reactor designs in countries with similar economic and regulatory conditions. But unlike some other countries such as the UK, Australia could afford to wait for this to happen, because Australia has multiple options to ensure its overall energy security. Given this, Australia should wait to see the economics of new nuclear deployment in other countries before considering any commitment to build nuclear power plants here.”
Fast-forward to 2024 and the picture for nuclear, the Coalition’s Plan A, remains the same:
“Since the publication of that report in 2012, little has happened to change our views. The cost of nuclear has not improved over that time, and large-scale nuclear construction timelines continue to blow out.”
But what has changed dramatically is the cost and technology picture for renewables, although that’s not without its challenges:
“Since 2012, the cost of solar and wind generation has fallen dramatically and renewables’ share of power generation has increased from about 10% to about 40%. The pace of deployment has recently slowed, mostly due to challenges in building the transmission network capacity in areas where there is insufficient capacity to connect more distributed generation. These challenges have been caused by escalating costs, slow regulatory approvals, and failure to secure local social licence for this new infrastructure.”
B stands for bad news
Nor does Grattan see the case for nuclear being enhanced or saved by the new, as yet commercially unproven technology, focus on small modular reactors (SMRs), which it dubs Plan B:
“Although more than 80 designs are in development, their economic competitiveness is still to be proven in practice. Recent work by the Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering suggests a mature market for SMRs is unlikely before the mid to late 2040s. This means they are no quicker an option for Australia than is large-scale nuclear.”
What is needed, according to Grattan, is a major, very objective overhaul of the national electricity market (NEM) to make it fit for purpose in a new energy era:
“The review must be approached as a co-design exercise between consumers, industry and politicians, drawing on the deep expertise of the market bodies. It has to acknowledge and accommodate political and physical realities as well as technocratic theory. It cannot be held hostage by ministers insisting that various technologies must be in or out.”
Apparently reading Grattan’s collective mind — although really just responding to a blindingly obvious and long overdue need — Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen announced today exactly such a review of Australia’s main electricity grid and market, led by an expert independent panel, to run for 12 months.
Grattan also takes an even-handed view of long-term political failure by Australian governments to come to grips with the real issue for climate and energy: decarbonisation:
“The single biggest challenge facing energy markets is decarbonisation. And yet, with a couple of honourable exceptions, governments are consistently shy about stating explicitly what this means and by when it should happen.”
The 2019 nuclear energy inquiry, dominated by the then-Coalition government, found in favour of a shift towards nuclear. The 2024 version, dominated by the Labor government, and just months out from an election, will inevitably find itself opposing such a shift. All of which will make Australians not much the wiser. In this debate, even more than most, the role of independent experts and fact-based analysis is more important than ever.
A footnote
Former NSW Liberal treasurer and energy minister Matt Kean participated in a debate last night organised by Macquarie University in Sydney around the topic “Australia’s Future Energy Mix — Is Nuclear Part of the Solution?” As though in some parallel political universe, where Liberals can be renewables champions and climate action true-believers, Kean is now the Labor-appointed chair of the Climate Change Authority, which advises the government on emissions targets. He warned that waiting 20 years for nuclear power would destine Australia to a less reliable, more expensive, dirtier energy future, saying:
“And let me tell you what that looks like. It looks like a breakdown of our precious ecosystems and biodiversity. Just look at the Great Barrier Reef and the coral bleaching that is going on there that is going to be baked into the system. Look at the Arctic ice sheets. Look at sea level rise, and look at the fact that large tracts of Australia will be uninhabitable because they are unlivable. That’s what the science tells us. And the science is not something that’s happening in the future. It’s happening now.
“I was the treasurer of NSW. It’s those that say the cost of taking action on climate change is too high. Let me tell you, I had to foot the bill because we hadn’t taken action on climate change to fund the worst natural disaster event that we’ve ever seen in the Lismore floods that followed the worst bushfires the country had ever seen, the Black Summer bushfires that followed the worst drought our nation had ever seen. So anyone sitting there saying, oh, you know, the cost of taking action on climate change is too much. Let me tell you, the cost of not acting on climate change will be far, far greater. How we get to net zero matters just as much as the goal itself.”
He may be an ex-politician now, if not forever, but Kean remains the nation’s best political communicator on the climate crisis and energy challenge by far.
Greens welcome Victorian government ending agreement with Elbit
Guardian, 28 Nov 24
The Greens MP Gabrielle de Vietri has welcomed the news the Victorian government has ended its agreement with weapons manufacturer Elbit Systems:
Relentless community pressure has forced Victorian Labor to end its partnership with Elbit – a company whose drones killed Australian aid worker Zomi Frankcom and countless Palestinian and Lebanese civilians. It shouldn’t have taken this long for Labor to cut its ties with genocide.
She questioned why the government hadn’t announced the Elbit decision since writing to the Labor MP Bronwyn Halfpenny last week:
This is an important step in the right direction, but why are Labor still leaving Victorians in the dark, they clearly have something to hide. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2024/nov/28/australia-politics-live-climate-super-social-media-ban-senate-anthony-albanese-peter-dutton-question-time
Emergency leaders say nuclear reactors pose unnecessary risk
November 27, 2024, by: The AIM Network, Emergency Leaders for Climate Action. https://theaimn.com/emergency-leaders-say-nuclear-reactors-pose-unnecessary-risk/
NUCLEAR REACTORS WOULD introduce significant and unnecessary risk to Australian communities and emergency responders, including firefighters already stretched by escalating climate fuelled disasters, warns Emergency Leaders for Climate Action (ELCA) in a submission to the parliamentary inquiry into nuclear power generation in Australia.
Greg Mullins, speaking on behalf of 38 former fire and emergency service chiefs from across Australia said: “Our firefighters are on the frontlines of escalating climate fuelled disasters, like bushfires and floods, fuelled by climate pollution. They’re not trained or equipped to deal with nuclear emergencies that could arise from nuclear reactors or the transportation and storage of radioactive waste.”
The ELCA submission highlights that nuclear reactor emergency planning and management has not been addressed by proponents of nuclear energy and emphasises that Australian emergency services lack the experience and resources to handle potential nuclear emergencies.
“Australian emergency services would have to be built up from scratch to respond to nuclear disasters, with no costings or plans in place to achieve this. There are no fully staffed urban fire service stations near the proposed sites for nuclear reactors, and it’s neither feasible nor reasonable to expect volunteer bushfire fighters to handle such high-risk emergencies,” said Mr Mullins
“I oversaw the deployment of Australian firefighters to assist in the wake of the earthquake and tsunami that led to the Fukushima disaster, where the chaos and devastation caused by nuclear failures was stark. First responders, many of them civilian firefighters, were thrown into situations they weren’t trained for. That’s not a risk we should take in Australia, no matter how remote.
“There are no safety or environmental frameworks in place to manage the risks of nuclear reactors or to safely transport and store radioactive waste in Australia.
“Placing nuclear reactors in disaster-prone areas like Latrobe, Lithgow, Singleton, and South Burnett would add to the burden emergency services already face responding to worsening bushfires, floods, and storms.
Beyond the safety risks, former Commissioner Mullins called the proposal a “dangerous distraction” from the energy solutions Australia urgently needs right now. “Every coal-fired power station will shut down before a single watt of nuclear power can enter our system. Nuclear reactors simply cannot be built quickly to address the urgent task of slashing pollution and reducing climate disaster risks right now.
“Our communities and emergency services are bearing the brunt of worsening disasters driven by burning coal, oil and gas. We don’t have the luxury of waiting decades for new power stations, we must slash climate pollution now to protect Australians. Australia can’t afford to risk our energy security, economy and safety on a nuclear fantasy when renewables can cut pollution today and help ensure a safer future for our kids.”
About Emergency Leaders for Climate Action: We are 38 former senior Australian fire and emergency service leaders who have observed how climate change is driving increasingly catastrophic extreme weather events that are putting lives, properties and livelihoods at greater risk and overwhelming our emergency services.
Canada’s nuclear waste organisation joins forces with the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency
World Nuclear News, November 25, 2024
Canada’s Nuclear Waste Management Organization said it recently signed a
new co-operation agreement with the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency
at a ceremony in the Australian Parliament in Canberra. The NWMO and
ARWA will collaborate on a range of issues related to the safe
management of radioactive waste, including the important topic of
reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.
The NWMO said it was honored to
learn from the experiences of Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait
Islanders during the visit and it “looks forward to a relationship of
partnership and knowledge-sharing”.
Coalition-linked nuclear expert questioned by parliament over coal industry ties
by political reporter Tom Lowrey, 22 Nov 24, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-22/coalition-nuclear-expert-questioned-coal-funding/104629770
In short:
A Labor-led committee has questioned a nuclear expert with close links to the Coalition over whether he made a potentially misleading statement to parliament over his funding for research.
Adjunct professor Stephen Wilson told a committee hearing he had not received funding from the “fossil fuel” sector, but government MPs are pointing to comments that contradict that.
What’s next?
Professor Wilson has denied that he “personally received payment from ‘fossil fuel’ companies” to fund his work looking into nuclear power.
A nuclear expert from the University of Queensland and a conservative think-tank have been questioned over possibly misleading parliament over funding for his work.
Parliamentary officials, writing on behalf of the Labor-led committee looking into nuclear power, have written to adjunct professor Stephen Wilson to clarify his ties to the coal industry.
In response to questions from the ABC, Professor Wilson said he had not “personally” received funding from the “fossil fuel” sector for his work on nuclear power.
Professor Wilson gave evidence to the inquiry last month in his capacity as a nuclear expert with the Institute of Public Affairs, a conservative think-tank.
He has been regularly cited by the Coalition as an advocate for the technology, which forms the centrepiece of the Coalition’s energy policy heading into the next election.
Professor Wilson travelled to North America with shadow energy minister Ted O’Brien on a nuclear study tour in 2023, including meetings with executives from nuclear giant Westinghouse.
He has also spoken at events with Mr O’Brien, criticising the current government’s renewables-led energy approach and talking up the potential of nuclear power.
During the evidence Professor Wilson gave to the nuclear inquiry in October, he was asked if he had “accepted donations from the fossil fuel industry to fund your research on energy”.
“No, I have not,” he replied.
n a letter sent this week, officials have pointed to comments made by Professor Wilson in a speech delivered to an IPA event in mid-2023.
In a transcript of the speech, Professor Wilson describes his work with the IPA’s energy security research program, and thanks donors for their support.
“I have taken on the challenge of working with Scott [Hargreaves] and the IPA staff, supported and encouraged by the far-sighted group of donors that Nick Jorss is bringing together,” he said.
Mr Jorss is the executive chairman of coal miner Bowen Coking Coal, and chair of lobby group Coal Australia.
The letter seeks “clarification on what appears to be contradictory information on the issue of donorship”.
The committee now questioning Professor Wilson was set up by the government in the House of Representatives to scrutinise nuclear power, which the Coalition has committed to ahead of the next election.
Professor Wilson has been cited by Opposition Leader Peter Dutton in speeches making the case for the Coalition’s proposed pivot to nuclear power.
In a speech in July last year, Mr Dutton quoted Professor Wilson calling on Australia to “prepare real options to deploy nuclear energy … in case we need them.”
The ABC contacted Professor Wilson with questions over the sources of his funding, and whether he had misled the committee.
In response, he denied having directly receiving funding from ‘fossil fuel’ sources for his work.
“I have not personally received payment from ‘fossil fuel’ companies for my research into the need for Australia to embrace carbon-free, nuclear energy,” he said.
“I have advocated strongly for years, in my own capacity, for energy policy to be developed and implemented on a rational basis.
“As an energy engineer and economist with 30 years’ experience in the economics and dynamics of energy systems around the world, and electricity and resources markets, I understand how vital it is for Australia to have energy security. Encouragingly, more and more Australians are starting to share this view.”
1 This month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/235274195556
21 April Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-04-21 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-04-21 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
Event Type: Virtual
A virtual link will be communicated before the event.
Host Contact Info: australia@icanw.org
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 